RE NURSANTI

HCAL 1299/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1465

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1299 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  The applicant filed a summons dated 4 May 2021 for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision as described below.

2.  The applicant is an Indonesian national. She arrived in Hong Kong in 2013 as a domestic helper.  Her employment contract was maturely terminated.  She overstayed and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 18 May 2016.  She lodged her non-refoulement claim to the Immigration Department.

3.  By Notice of Decision dated 20 February 2017 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director rejected her claim and she appealed to the Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”).  The Board considered her appeal and by its Decision dated 29 June 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), it refused her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

4.  The applicant applied to the High Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  Having considered the merits of the case, by Form Call-1 dated 19 March 2021 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court found that there was no merit in her proposed judicial review.  The Court dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

5.  In her affirmation in support of this application, the applicant said that she received the Court’s decision late and that she did not have money to instruct a lawyer.

6.  The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 19 April 2021 by ordinary post and is deemed to have been served on the second working day after posting, i.e. 21 April 2021.  The deadline for her to file her appeal is 5 May 2021.  See Practice Direction 19.2, paragraph 2(b).  She has taken out this application on 4 May 2021, which seems to be unnecessary.  However, she will be out of time when she receives this Decision.  I shall therefore deal with her application accordingly.

7.  By virtue of Order 32, rule 11A(1)(a) of the RHC, I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing.

8.  In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

9.  The Board considered the applicant’s evidence and found that it accepted major parts of her evidence on the facts of her case.  However, it considered that the sexual assaults by the creditor was not a systemic risk of harm; that state protection was available to her and that internal relocation was an option open to her.  On those bases, it rejected her claim on Persecution risk, BOR 3 risk, BOR 2 risk and Torture risk.

10.  There is no evidence to show that the Board erred in its finding of the facts or the application of the law to her case.

11.  She was unable to say in what respect the Court’s decision was wrong in her affirmation.

12.  Since there is no reasonable prospect of success in her intended appeal, I decline to extend time for her intended appeal.

13.  I dismiss her application.